User talk:Eggishorn/Archive/2014

Archives

2007

2008

2013

Use of "close paraphrasing" on my article

Hi there,

You have added a notice to my article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willem_van_Suijdam indicating it contains close paraphrasing from http://ontariopianos.com/who_we_are.aspx. I am the copyright holder for that content as www.ontariopianos.com is my website. I authorize the use of this content here on Wikipedia as it is my own work. I have responded on the "talk" page of the article itself but I have no idea how to go about this. I am very sorry if this is the wrong place to respond. I am a little Wikipedia illiterate I am afraid.

Willem — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.126.111 (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fire camp.

You commented on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fire camp page saying that "no indication that nominator understands WP:BEFORE." You are 100% correct. I am still learning the processes around here and had never read that page. There is a LOT going on. Forgive the exaggerations but there are like 30 different ways to nominate a page for deletion. I am not trying to "cheat the system" or get around anything. I just wanted to say "hey, this page doesn't look so great. Should we maybe think about deleting it?" If people more educated about the system, and with better knowledge of the process object to it being removed then cool. Thank you for pointing out that page. I will be much more careful in the future. --Zackmann08 (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm happy that my comments led to some education. In reality, there are really only 3 ways to delete a page: AfD (which you know about now), the [WP:PROD|proposed deletion process]] and the speedy deletion process. I find it easiest to think of AfD as the default process and the other two as exceptions. If an article should be deleted, then it should comply with the WP:deletion policy unless either:

one of the narrow criteria for speedy deletion applies (e.g., hoax pages)

OR

the outcome of the deletion discussion is so obvious that you can skip the debate through a proposed deletion (e.g., articles on living persons that have no sources and were created after 18 March 2010)

It is probably best to let more-experienced editors make the determination of articles that belong in this second exception, at least until you get the hang of things around here a bit more. After all, it doesn't hurt anything if something that could be PROD'ed goes through a full AfD discussion. It can, however, be a mistake if an article that should have had a full AfD gets zapped early through a PROD.

I hope this helps.

This is so unbelievably helpful!! I am copying and pasting this to my notes so I have it for reference. THANK YOU! --Zackmann08 (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]