User talk:Latchem/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Latchem, you are invited to the Teahouse!
|
Hi Latchem! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC) |
Speedy deletion declined: Ranjana srivastava
Hello Latchem, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ranjana srivastava, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: clearly not G1, WP:CCS - Australian Human Rights Award, use PROD or AfD. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. —SpacemanSpiff 08:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've tagged it with proposed deletion for lacking references. —Latchem 20:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Latchem. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- Editor's index to Wikipedia
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
Again, welcome! NgYShung huh? 03:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
CSD tagging
Please don't use a scattergun approach to tagging like you did at Pashmol. If there is no content then use A3. A1 is only applicable where there is some content but you cannot work out what the subject about. A7 only applies if you can work out what the article is about but there is no credible assertion of notability. Scattergun tagging suggests that you do not realise that the CSD criteria are deliberately narrow in scope and if continued will earn you a poor reputation for inaccuracy. There are times when more than one applies (A7 & G11 for example) but on the whole you need to identify the ONE criteria you think applies and use that and that alone. Nthep (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Nthep - thanks for letting me know. When articles are tagged with multiple CSD criteria, the template clearly says that any of the CSD criteria that are tagged can be used for deletion. In this case, I believe the article fit the criteria of A1, A3, A7 and G7. Interestingly, you believe A3 is the most appropriate. But if you looked at the edit history, the author blanked the page - which is clearly G7. So if what you are saying is true that you should only use one criterion that fits the best, you should've used G7. Please consider your message before you rudely post on my talk page thinking you know it all - "earn a poor reputation for inaccuracy" - it wasn't inaccurate. Thanks, —Latchem 20:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Whether it was A3 or G7 is moot when the original edit only had 7 characters is moot, equally G2 may have applied but the point is how can you claim not to have understood the context or said it had no notability if there was no content to assess - they are incompatible criteria. There are a number of criteria for a reason, not just one and people using them to nominate an article for deletion under CSD are expected to make an educated assessment of what is applicable and reasonable to use in that particular set of circumstances. I don't know it all, I've made errors in this field and elsewhere but I have learned to learn from mistakes and not hit the target almost by accident by using everything I thought might be applicable in the hope that at least one is right. Nthep (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Nthep As you say, there are a number of criteria and people should make an educated assessment of what is applicable and reasonable. In this circumstance, multiple criteria were applicable and reasonable. For example, you deleted the article under A3 and the article was blanked making it eligible for G7, it could've also been G2. The article Pashmol was recreated identically as before. I tagged it with A3 and another editor tagged it with A1. It was deleted under A1 (check the deletion log). It's not just me who also thinks A1 is applicable and reasonable. It all depends on how you look at it. You might see it different than me. You deleted it under A3 which is one of the criteria that I placed it under. It's up to you - the deleting admin - to decide whether it is applicable and reasonable and which criteria is applicable and reasonable if multiple are tagged. I do not appreciate you feeling the need to correct me when you, in fact, (1) deleted the article under one of the criteria that I placed, and (2) there is no harm to anyone for tagging it under multiple criteria that possibly could be applicable and reasonable - the article is going to get deleted anyway under one of the criteria. You probably caused more harm and disruption by inappropriately posting on my talk page. In hindsight, I concede that some criteria did not apply as much as others, but I do not appreciate you posting here making the suggestion that I'm uneducated because I didn't make an "educated assessment" and that I will earn "a poor reputation for inaccuracy" and I think you're out of line for doing that. You could've made your point differently. Thanks, —Latchem 22:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Whether it was A3 or G7 is moot when the original edit only had 7 characters is moot, equally G2 may have applied but the point is how can you claim not to have understood the context or said it had no notability if there was no content to assess - they are incompatible criteria. There are a number of criteria for a reason, not just one and people using them to nominate an article for deletion under CSD are expected to make an educated assessment of what is applicable and reasonable to use in that particular set of circumstances. I don't know it all, I've made errors in this field and elsewhere but I have learned to learn from mistakes and not hit the target almost by accident by using everything I thought might be applicable in the hope that at least one is right. Nthep (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
NPP
Hi. We appreciate your enthusiasm but if you wish to begin your Wikipedia career by policing other editors' contributions please confine yourself to patrolling for obvious vandalism. New Page Patrol/Page Curation requires a near-admin knowledge of policies and guidelines, and you have not even read the instructions for NPP or Page Curation yet. When you have have made at least 200 mainspace edits, you qualify to enroll at the WP:CVUA where you can learn all about vandalism, and on graduation you will qualify for the Rollbacker user right. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Kudpung, thanks for your message. I understand the policies and guidelines well enough - I do not require a process to go through. And I intend on continuing what I've been doing as there really haven't been any problems. Feel free to review my contributions. Thanks, —Latchem 23:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)