User talk:Bobbyciraldo

creating a page of nothing is not the way to handle this issue. I am sure there are admins more than happy to discuss this. Heck look up the one that delted it and discuss with them...

Welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as Samwell) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Xiahou 01:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Samwell

Hey, I'm the editor who tagged 'Samwell' for deletion (the first time anyway). Do you have a copy of the old page? If not, you'll have to start over. I'd be willing to help, but you'll need more sources than what you've posted in the past to maintain the page. Let me know, SERSeanCrane 01:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't store deleted articles? Not even temporarily? Doesn't it seem like this could be a potential problem, especially if a page is unfairly deleted? As a former computer programmer, it's hard to believe. GREAT.

No, I don't have the original article. My colleague wrote it within wikipedia only. He's out of town; we'll just have to wait until he gets back. Thanks a lot, pal!

If you really want wikipedia to survive and thrive, you must understand that there is a freaking WEALTH of knowledge out there that is blocked from getting into wikipedia due to rampant pedanticism. EVERYONE has important info that belongs somewhere in wikipedia; NO ONE has time to figure out all the rules. Why hasn't the wikipedia community figured out that there needs to be a dual-layered approach to accumulating data? Like where regular people add info in a raw form, and volunteers clean it up? It seems so obvious.

That's generally the way it works, BUT (what? what?) it's hard to do without sources.

Also, there's really only one page you need to read --> WP:Notability

SERSeanCrane 02:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Samwell is Noteable. Or he "attracts notice". Google "What What (In the Butt)". 2. Trying to treat Notability as a non-subjective quality is "patent nonsense". Jedis don't think in Absolutes; why should WikiP? 3. Who cares? So what if you have a bunch of articles about seemingly insignificant things? Is wikipedia running out of hard drive space for all these text files?

You don't need to respond; I'm giving up.

Signed, Another potential contributer, deftly thwarted.

AfD nomination of Modus Operandi (film)

An editor has nominated Modus Operandi (film), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modus Operandi (film) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 14:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)