| Revision as of 17:43, 24 October 2008 editMichaelQSchmidt (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users60,150 edits →The Roadents← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:53, 24 October 2008 edit undoSchuym1 (talk | contribs)10,393 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| ::Schuym1 may be perhaps suggesting that he feels it is up to a nominator to first do a diligent search for ] sources per ] and ] and then tag for improvement rather than deletion. Stubs or no, he has not yet created an article that was unable to be sourced as notable, despite first glances. If an article can be improved, it should be tagged so, as deletion is only a last resort in a much longer process. The appearance of that process being ignored frustrates him. Please forgive his impatience. ''']''' '']'' 17:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC) | ::Schuym1 may be perhaps suggesting that he feels it is up to a nominator to first do a diligent search for ] sources per ] and ] and then tag for improvement rather than deletion. Stubs or no, he has not yet created an article that was unable to be sourced as notable, despite first glances. If an article can be improved, it should be tagged so, as deletion is only a last resort in a much longer process. The appearance of that process being ignored frustrates him. Please forgive his impatience. ''']''' '']'' 17:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::And further, since Schuym1 has thousands of edits to his credit in just the last 4 months, and you have less than 2 dozen since youruser account was created a few days ago, I would ask that you ] in his experience as an editor and in his understanding of notability and sourcing. Thank you. ''']''' '']'' 17:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC) | ::And further, since Schuym1 has thousands of edits to his credit in just the last 4 months, and you have less than 2 dozen since youruser account was created a few days ago, I would ask that you ] in his experience as an editor and in his understanding of notability and sourcing. Thank you. ''']''' '']'' 17:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| I should also report you fro . ](])</small> 22:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:53, 24 October 2008
The Roadents
This is not an advertisement and none of my damn articles are advertisements. It also doesn't matter if an article is a stub. I have also added your AFD nomination to the log and fixed it since you did it wrong. Schuym1 (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Don't you curse towards me young man.. The stub was a bunch of useless information.. It should be deleted! It's not notable enough to deserve a wikipedia entry... Imnotacoolguy (talk) 05:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Schuym1 may be perhaps suggesting that he feels it is up to a nominator to first do a diligent search for WP:V sources per WP:AFD and WP:ATF and then tag for improvement rather than deletion. Stubs or no, he has not yet created an article that was unable to be sourced as notable, despite first glances. If an article can be improved, it should be tagged so, as deletion is only a last resort in a much longer process. The appearance of that process being ignored frustrates him. Please forgive his impatience. Schmidt, 17:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- And further, since Schuym1 has thousands of edits to his credit in just the last 4 months, and you have less than 2 dozen since youruser account was created a few days ago, I would ask that you assume good faith in his experience as an editor and in his understanding of notability and sourcing. Thank you. Schmidt, 17:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I should also report you fro this edit. Schuym1 (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)