User talk:Yartett

Bristol palin
Cool! Dloh  cierekim  15:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki
Please note that on the left hand margin (under my css file) of the Barak Obama article is list including "Bosanski Brezhoneg Български Català". This is the "list of Wikipedia articles of Barack Obama in other languages". We do not need a separate article. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama
I was responsible for tagging your article on articles about Obama, although not deleting it as I am not an administrator. Can I just clarify that I support Obama and would probably vote for him if I didn't live in the UK! The reason I tagged it for deletion was not censorship, it is just that an article about articles relating to Obama is not appropriate content for Wikipedia. If there were such articles then there would be thousands of them relating to all sort of topics. We need to continue to focus on improving content. I hope that you will continue to edit Wikipedia and perhaps start a new article relating to Obama that fits with the notability criteria. --Vince (talk) 08:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is Not
Hi, take a look at What Wikipedia is Not. You really shouldn't be posting these links for folks to "check out". As the policy I just pointed out says, we're not a soapbox, a link farm or a blog.

We're looking for good, neutral, well-referenced content. We're just an encyclopaedia. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Mijnlulinjouwkut-- links removed
You need to stop using Wikipedia as a forum or metworking connection. The links you added are unrelated to building Wikipedia. Thanks  Dloh  cierekim  21:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Corpx
same thing. Please stop using Wikipedia to promote your own agenda. Dloh cierekim  21:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Chakira
Once again, spamming outside links to network your political activism is not appropriate. Dloh cierekim  21:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I want to reiterate my comments above as well as Dlohcierekim's. Perhaps I was not clear or emphatic enough -- we are not a platform to promote other website nor are we a forum for activist agendas. Do not continue spamming user talk pages. If you continue, you'll force some admin to block your account.


 * We welcome encyclopaedia-building contributions but you need to check your other agendas at the door. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

mis use of wikipedia talk pages.
thanks for you note. This is not a social network. Wikipedia user pages are for editing Wikipedia. Not serving as political meet-up points. Not for promoting your political agendas. Not for providing you with a soapbox. For for leaving external links for off wikipeida. Not for you to tell others of new places to find a soapbox. Edits in which you add externa links will probably always get reverted. Why don't you try building Wikipedia in other areas. There are thousands of article that need improvement. If your purpose here is to build the Encyclopedia? Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  16:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

2nd opinion
I have requested a second opinion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  17:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I also left comments at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents requesting a review of my actions. I encourage you to chip in. It's not our goal to run you off this project and I am open to eating my words to the extent they were inappropriate. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I will participate in this process for a while. Unlike Yahoo! Answers, I'll grant that there are human intelligences at work here.
 * Yartett (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * See also: "Please do not bite the newcomers" -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So noted.  ;-)   Yartett (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Libertarian Wiki
A tag has been placed on Libertarian Wiki, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of Libertarian Wiki 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 help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. David (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Just so you know it isn't just you, this has been deleted twice before. I get 0 Google news or Google scholar hits, so it really lacks reliable, verifiable sources needed to write an article. It might be best to create viable stubs by having sources lined up and ready to go before posting. I do all my drafting in notepad, and then copy and paste into the edit box. Then I run my spell checker and preview. Look at various articles to get an idea of formatting schemes. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  19:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I wasn't given enough time between my posting on the stub's discussion page, and finding out it's been removed.


 * For crying out loud guys.


 * It was a stub!!


 * I guess it'll be minutes before my lost post on the discussion is removed, so here it is, or was.

>Yartett (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you care to be more specific as to why it should remain? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well Beeblebrox, I'm having a real crappy day here at Wikipedia.

Just check out my talk page; and it's been only about a week since I started editing ---or attempting to edit.

So why should an article of Libertarian Wiki stay?

Why should there be an Wikipedia article of another obviously driven site like Conservapedia: complete with quotes of Jimbo Wales kinda praising it.

You tell me why there should be an article on Conservapedia; and why such an argument would have nothing to do with any possible arguments in keeping this stub.

In the meantime, I re-evaluate whether I should continue the bother of attempting to be a Wikipedia editor.

Yartett (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Libertarian Wiki
A tag has been placed on Libertarian Wiki requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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. Booglamay ( talk ) - 19:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability alone -- or lack thereof -- drives this deletion pursuit. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Conservapedia
Gets 100 Google news hits. The article lists like 70 references. As I mentioned before, the Libertarian wiki had none. I've requested before that you read our guidelines concerning notability, reliable sources and verifiable sources. If you were to read and understand these guidelines, it would help you a good deal. Please.

As I mentioned before, it would be better to have sources lined up and listed in the article before posting. For what it's worth, my first article got deleted too. Now I always have sources before creating articles.

Also, this business of wanting to keep articles and posts up till after the election makes it look like you are continuing to try to use Wikipedia as a sopabox. Please read WP:SOAPBOX. Those of us who have a strong long term commitment to the project have a great deal of concern when they see that happening.

Yes, if you can follow our policies and guidelines, you should stay. You've a lot of energy and you are tenacious. If we could channel that in a good way, you could be a great benefit to the project. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  20:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The bit about until the election is partially because that people are quite interested in politics these days.


 * After that, these article on Wikipedia won't mean as much for them for a time afterwards.


 * By deleting political stuff for vague and arbitrary reasons doesn't serve the people.


 * Thanks about the compliments, but it might not make up for the time and aggravation of today.


 * I'll probably less flak on other sites.


 * "As for uncited sources, here is an early version of the Conservapedia article:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia&oldid=94600333


 * Yartett (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that articles should have all possible references already on first creation. I'm saying there is not enough coverage for Libertarian wiki to meet notability.  Dloh  cierekim  21:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The above link to the early Wikipedia article on Conservapedia had no apparent links save to its own site, and was more boisterous than my stub.
 * What matters is that the article was researched and found to have multiple verifiable references from reliable sources.
 * I checked Google, and there were 2 280 references to "Libertarian Wiki."
 * Most of them from non-notable wikis and blogs, neither of which are Reliable sources. Google News, however, shows absolutely no news articles about the site.
 * I am tired of this.
 * I've wasted much of a day today, and many hours before that, in an apparently futile effort at creation and editing (I'm not all that great at the keyboard).
 * I will now leave and try to enjoy the weekend, and likely do the last edits to my user page---my last here at Wikipedia---next week.
 * Other MediaWiki sites beckon and I can probably use the varying search bots, so my edits and creations will have half a chance of being read and constructively edited, and not blown away as they are here at Wikipedia.
 * Farewell.
 * Farewell.
 * Yartett (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My comments threaded in in italics. There are clear guidelines on Wikipedia, and there have not yet been found sufficient sources to establish notability. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 01:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * All you have done CobaltBlueTony™ is proven that which has already been proven: that Libertarian Wiki has no news sources; ---at least on Google News; but no one here has proven that Conservapedia had any more wealth of sources when  IT first started as a stub.
 * Their early stub had 6 links: all to the Conservapedia site. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia&oldid=94600333
 * Mine had one.
 * They are as ideological as Libertarian Wiki---and adversarial to Wikipedia, whereas LW describes Wikipedia (I believe) as a "fine site."
 * Do any of the news links of Conservapedia go back to December 2006 when it was started? Are any of CNN or NYT material, or are they just glorified blogs? I noticed a few mentioned other Wiki sites as well (Scholarpedia. Notice too, that their earliest stub also had no sources either http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scholarpedia&oldid=64853856).
 * Goodness me, it looks like I might have to spend a few others trying to amass a reason for the existence of this little stub; and perhaps find that even that might not be enough ---given my track record here.
 * Is this typical of Wikipedia?
 * Yartett (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact that there may have been or might now be inappropriate material on Wikipedia is no justification to include yours. The version you state was insufficiently sourced was also PRODded, with the reason, "Non-notable school project. Only 5 Google hits."  The PROD was inexplicably removed by an anonymous editor.  Thereafter, it was deleted -- six times in four months!  By the time it was accepted, the site had reached sufficient notability through verifiable reliable sources as to earn the right to stay.  It still faced opposition -- as does any article here at any time, for any reason.  You cannot "amass a reason for the existence of this little stub" if it fails to meet Wikipedia's criteria -- end of story.  If your stub fails to meet the criteria, it will and should be deleted until such time as sufficient verifiable and reliable sources can be found. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The article, properly named Other stuff exists doesn't really defend your position, and indeed, seems a little sympathetic to mine.
 * They create an article (with 5 Google hits?). I wonder if some of that notability was due to Wikipedia, it was either Google or Wikipedia that I learned of its existence.
 * It seems considered for deletion, they lose, they win. In between days they aren't there, other times they are.
 * Mine gets blown out of the water with a speedy deletion tag before I can even add a post to its discussion page.
 * No, I think there is a bit of arbitrariness in this: wouldn't you agree?
 * Yartett (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely arbitrary -- kinda like a speeding ticket. You, me and the cop all know that everyone speeds down this road, but you're the one who got caught.  It doesn't mean that the handling/mishandling, ignoring, or extremity of the penalty/-ies levied with any other case has anything to do with the fact that you were speeding.  The fact is, Conservapedia should have been speedied at the start, and upon any claim of notability, would have faced the AfD process -- which it did, mind you -- and been deleted.  Recreations would have been immediately deleted under WP:CSD, unless the content or references had changed significantly -- but oh wait, that's kinda what happened with Conservapedia!  Granted, it was not dealt with under the ideal circumstances, much the same as having a high speed hazardous road conspicuously patrolled by police with many stops visible along the stretch of it, but it was handled as well as can be expected in real-life situations.  Ergo, Libertarian Wiki gets caught in the ideal trap while others slip by.  There's always WP:Deletion review, but if you intend to file on the basis of WP:OSE, you really haven't a prayer -- but you're certainly within your bounds to do so.  By all means, please expose this article to the community at large through that process, and you'll see that I'm not preaching my own creed here.  In fact, once Libertarian Wiki reaches the critical threshhold for notability, I will readily defend it from any attempts at deletion.  Politicking articles has no place here whatsoever.
 * And yes, Wikipedia itself has an impact on notability, as it is part of the reality which it seeks to document. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the candor; and the indirect referring to Heisenberg; which I might affect by making a certain MediaWiki site more notable (outside of Wikipedia). ;-)
 * Yartett (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hm, if you accomplish that, make sure that it's documented somewhere, because I'd love to see in an article evidence that it became notable because a Wikipedia editor took it as a challenge to do to. I love interconnectedness! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

January 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.  Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 04:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)