Talk page archive. Please do not edit this page. -- SlitherSnakeSempter, 23:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Market and Nonmarket Components in Integrated Strategy[edit]
Yes. It is incomprehensible, but it has enough semantic meaning, not much, that it doesn't qualify as word salad. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledged - my PROD reason stands as is though. -- SlitherSnakeSempter, 01:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:SlitherSnakeSempter - We are saying the same thing. It needs deleting, but we don't have a speedy criterion. Also, it appears to be one of several articles by a class that has an undesirable assignment. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SlitherSnakeSempter! I've moved Firing of FBI Director James Comey back to the mainspace, since there is a deletion procedure underway. Feel free to copy-and-paste the page contents into your userspace if you would like to continue working on it there, but please do not move the entire article. GorillaWarfare(talk) 01:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's better in mainspace where the full power of the project comes to into play. Chees, Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was a section heading in one of the sources (Bloomberg?). Anyway, I'm glad you moved the thing 'cause current title is more encyclopedic.Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tuesday Night Massacre. Since you had some involvement with the Tuesday Night Massacre redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — JFGtalk 18:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have proposed to delete the redirect as the user that moved it. -- SlitherSnakeSempter, 19:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you add such a tag mechanically, or do you look at the single source? Could you give me at least ten minutes next time to find and add the next source? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of the source doesn't overrule the fact that more than one source is needed. The single source could be the best in the world, but an article still needs at least 2, preferably 3 or 4 sources. Additionally, the tag isn't anything bad against you or the article - it's just a note for yourself and/or other editors. You or someone else can remove the tag once the issue is resolved. -- SlitherSnakeSempter, 19:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The tagging is a waste of time, imho. I know what the tag tells me. I am working on the article. Every single fact is sourced, it doesn't need any further citation. Compare example pictured and at this ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Will you kindly remove the tag? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since the issues which the tag addresses are now resolved, you can remove the tag yourself! In the future though, please don't harass me over something like this. -- SlitherSnakeSempter, 20:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I found a merciful soul without asking. (I removed the first tag myself, and live by a voluntary 1RR, normally quite happily.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I invite you to look at EuropaChorAkademie to understand why my blood pressure goes up when I see tags. - Very generally ("you" didn't even mean you personally, but anybody who tags): I believe these tags are good for nothing. Telling readers that an article has only one source implies that they can't count to one. The time they need to read the tag seems wasted, imho. If a degrading tag is needed, it could go to the bottom, or the talk, or just be a category. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, we appreciate your enthusiasm but serious, complex maintenance tasks such as patrolling and tagging new pages are not for beginners. Please do not tag pages until you have significantly more experience and have read and fully understood the tutorials. In the meantime however, and as soon as you have reached 200 mainspace edits, you will be able to enroll at the WP:CVUA to learn all about vandalism and how you can help combat it. It's a much easier process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SlitherSnakeSempter, have you read the above? You are still incorrectly tagging pages despite a clear request to stop until you have more experience.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, Ponyo, can you please point me to specific diffs that contain "inappropriate tagging"? I believe that all of my tags have been appropriate. -- SlitherSnakeSempter, 21:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just from the last couple hours? this one and this one and this article that, ironically, you didn't nominate for CSD but instead placed a bunch of tags on despite it being a clear WP:G11 and WP:G12 candidate as a blatant copyright violation. There are many such instances of poor judgment. This is very clearly not a new account, so either you are outright socking or you are attempting a clean start that is failing. The only way to know which it is would be for you to provide the name of your previous account(s). --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, those diffs aren't very helpful as I can't view them. -- SlitherSnakeSempter, 21:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's because they were deleted under other, more appropriate rationales. Would you care to address the second part of my note?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer not to discuss that publicly. You are more than welcome to email me, where I will provide confidential details to a limited extent. -- SlitherSnakeSempter, 21:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
