-->My Philosophy<--

Okay, everyone, I know that recently a lot of my articles have been short stubs, and this has been seen by a lot of people as being unhelpful and disruptive, but I follow the concept of Wikipedia:Article development, that is, yes - the article does not have to start off perfect. A stub is better than no article at all. There are so many great ideas for articles that have been cast aside and forgotten about. All I am trying to do is bring them to people's attention. Yes, that results in lots of stub article, but.... so what? I say we all take a massive chill pill and let the articles have a chance to grow. If the subject is non-notable, so be it, but if the only reason why people want it deleted is because of its current state, then I personally think you have forgotten what Wikipedia is all about. P.S That said, now I will be more cautious in my choices of articles to create, and I will take sources into consideration. I have to admit, I did throw my self into the task in a solitary manner, so I didn't really worry about the technical details. I just wanted to get the article out there. But now I will be more careful.--Coin945 (talk) 07:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, take your own chill pill. Most of us here are chilling when we edit Wikipedia. It's actually fun to create high quality articles, using reliable sources, good writing, and on subjects that are notable. If your articles are being tagged by editors for not being notable for some reason, Assume Good Faith that those editors really do think the subject just doesn't deserve a Wikipedia entry. They may be wrong, or you may be wrong, but that's what the AfD process is for, to cordially discuss those things. You're right, taking the solitary approach, without knowing Wikipedia policies, can be stressful. Join a WikiProject or three, like WP:WikiProject Australia, WP:WikiProject Film, or one of many others. It's probably less stressful to work on polishing up existing articles, then to create new ones, but to each his own (hey, if you can eat vegemite, you're a better person than I am!). First Light (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to be insulting or condescending. I am sorry if it came across in that maner. I thought it was important to clarify my position so people knew where I was coming from.~~Almost all of the articles which were flagged for deletion, once moved to AfD, have had keep consesus'~~ (this is no longer true... I do still think that an obsession with deletion over improving is a negative aspect to the Wikipedia culture), so that is some indication that the fault lies with rash nominations, not with my articles. I do know Wikipedia policies. I have read a lot of them. I do know how to format references etc. I have created many stubs because I find it more useful to Wikipedia to create many stub articles than working on already-made articles that I have little knowledge of. Not everything is about taking already existing articles up to featured status. In regards to helping Wikipedia on a large scale, I am 5 years too late. I know that many poeple think we're in a new phase of Wikipedia where article creation is slowing and now quality is more important than quantity (of articles), but I still see value in creating new articles. A stub is better than nothing, right? And then someone with more knwledge later down the track will build onto the articl etc. Where has this great philosophy gone? Now it's all rush, rush, rush - everything you put into the mainspace has to be perfect. For me, part of the thrill is seeing articles that I have worked on, grow and flourish thorugh the help of many editors. The only (what I initially thought was a) problem was that the stub articles I was creating were indeed not notable, but now that that is mostly false, I know I have done good. I am now part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles so there will be no notability worries with the rticles I am making now. When I said I work in a solitary manner, I didn't mean that I am some sort of rebel to Wikipedia, I simply meant that in the sort of work I do (or at least have been doing in the past couple of days), only really requires me in the short term. I hope this has cleared up some things I may not have aid as eloquently as I shouldve in the first section--Coin945 (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you said what you meant quite well. I was just pointing out that as a community, there are all types of people here, with many different opinions and approaches to editing. We all need to respect those differences: yours, mine, and the editors who are either tagging or defending your articles. And also those who have differing views of whether a stub is notable, or sourced properly. None of us should take it personally when we run up against people who hold different views, because it happens all the time. First Light (talk) 02:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're completely right... you know, before I started my stub-fest, I read the essay about not taking your pages personally, and I told myself, I wasnt going to let it get personal... but it always ends up that way, doesn't it! I wrote "My philosophy" after like 4 articles (which I knew were all going to be kept) were nominated for deletion - yes, it got on my nerves a bit :P. But yes, I understand that we all need to respoct eachothers opinions and views...and yes, I also know that I may have caused some cleanup to occur along the way and I apologize to whom that may concern for that.--Coin945 (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion and appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the page's discussion. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Please do NOT remove deletion notices yourself, but if you have contested a deletion, please address the issues to avoid further deletion. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: All articles must be sourced. If you are looking for reliable sources for an article such as Belgitude, please be sure to cite the books that mention it, together with page number where the contents of your article are mentioned. For instructions how to make citations please see WP:CITE. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scandinavian art

The subject of the prehistoric and Viking Age art of Scandinavia is treated under the page title Norse art. If you care to dig up some good literature on the subject, that article can probably be significantly improved and expanded. "Scandinavian art", on the other hand, is an overly broad title for what you appear to want to do here. --Hegvald (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was a request I found on an ArticleRequest page. Although I am not that knowledgable on the subject, I just made a quick stub so there was something there. I hope to see the article grow and flourish. Although the article is not perfect now, I think it should be given a chance. Also, I think there is a different between norse art and scandinavian art. I might be wrong.--Coin945 (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the article you started: "There are 3 main artistic styles in Scandinavia: Jellinge Style, Ringerike Style, and Urnes Style." So, would you say that Edvard Munch painted in the Ringerike Style or the Urnes Style? Danish architect and designer Arne Jacobsen's chairs are in the Jellinge style, right? I mean, it is the only one of the three that is named after a place in Denmark. --Hegvald (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your point is...--Coin945 (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That you don't see the point is a clear demonstration of the problem. I think I am done here. --Hegvald (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hanuno'o

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Hanuno'o. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. JDOG555 (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

Hi. One of the points people are making here is that while it may appear to be a good idea to start subs on subjects that we may not already have, as all articles must be referenced, they are likely to be deleted if they are not. So if you are unable to find the time to look for WP:RS, you may be wasting your time, which would be a shame as you are clearly keen on adding to the encyclopedia. Never hesitate to ask for advice. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And please format your references properly: this is not a properly referenced article. If you are quoting from books on Google, please format it as a reference to a book which happens to be available online - ie give us author, title, page number, date, publisher. "Chapter X" is no sort of a reference. Proper references prevent WP:Link rot: even if Google books changes its URLs, the information will still be available by way of original book, whether in another online format or actually on paper. Please slow down and improve the references in your stubs. Thanks. PamD 08:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, yes, I will improve on my referencing skills :) Thanks--Coin945 (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked at Theriophily: slightly improved referencing skills, but a long way to go. I've upgraded a book ref ad a journal ref for you. Remember that what you are citing is a book/journal which happens to be available online, so use the appropriate ref format: ProveIt has a dropdown menu where you can choose "Book" or "Journal" and be guided into providing the right fields, or you can use the drop-down "Templates" menu from the edit bar (not 100% sure whether that requires you to have made appropriate choices at "Gadgets" in "Preferences"). You should end up with a reference just like you would use in quoting a book or journal in an essay or project at school/college, but with one element of it being a link to the online version. (And possibly other links to the author or the journal if they have Wikipedia articles). How about going back to some of your flood of stubs and tidying up their references, rather than creating more stubs? As a regular stub-sorter I've been faced with this mass of minimal stubs in need of a lot of tidying up. PamD 17:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from List of gestures into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Cnilep (talk) 07:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info :)--Coin945 (talk) 08:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Repost of Apollarium

A tag has been placed on Apollarium requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's discussion directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead recreating the page. Thank you. Nabla (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing etc

You can't use allwords as a source - it's quoting Wikitionary, and like Wikipedia itself, that's not regarded here as a reliable source (editable....). The glossary one does not link to a wiki, but uses exactly the same text. This provides us with a problem like that of the chicken and the egg. Which came first? If glossary did, you can't use the text as it's copyright to them. If, as I suspect, they too are copying wiki sources, then it's an unreliable reference. (Ever read Catch 22?) I've been through 10 pages of ghits, and can't see anything that looks reliable, with one exception but unfortunately the link doesn't work. Before you post this again, read WP:RS and find a couple first. And write it in your own words - different words to those in those copycat sites. (You'd be amazed at how many there are - some even print our stuff out and sell it!). Peridon (talk) 13:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it under G4, and delinked it at the Milliken House article. I've added a 'citation needed' tag there to the use of the word apollarium. That means a reliable reference is needed to show that there is such a thing there. Peridon (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough.--Coin945 (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Myrchents - references problem

You created this article on 2 December 2011. So it is surprising that the references are all "Accessed October 28, 2007"? Did you copy them wholesale from another WP article? The accessdate is supposed to show the date on which the web reference was used to support the content of the article. What is going on here? Please explain. PamD 23:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, sorry about that that article was from a retired Wikipedia editor, from some years ago. I thought the content was worthy of being moved into the mainspace so I copied the info in. It was either that or the content never entering the mainspace. I thought it best to keep the 2007 references in case any of the links are now defunct but worked at that point in time.--Coin945 (talk) 06:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that you copied the entire article from the other editor's userspace, without any attribution, despite what you have been told above about copying within Wikipedia? Totally against the rules. Have you done this for other articles too? SLOW DOWN. Create a few good original properly referenced articles, or improve existing articles, and learn more about the rules before you break them, please. PamD 08:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've found the article at User:Chubbles/The_Myrchents. S/he does not appear to be retired. What are you playing at? PamD 08:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chubbles is not retired, they have around 39,000 and are quite a prolific content provider with editing history right up until today. Coin, I suggest you take the advice you've been given here and do some vandal patrolling or something until you have a better hang of things. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

.. Yeah.... to be honest, I sort of did it, and then completely forgot about it until now. I do know it was wrong. It was a huge mistake. I fully support a speedy delete. I will not do it again. I blanked the page, along with 2 others which were created under similar circumstances. They should be deleted soon enough. --Coin945 (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The Myrchents

A tag has been placed on The Myrchents, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

"Editor" states this article was copied from userspace of a "retired" editor- see User_talk:Coin945#The_Myrchents_-_references_problem

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. PamD 08:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):::What's more, I'm tempted to CSD db-band The Myrchents. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Oops! Looks like you beat me to it. I'll check the criterion, and delete it accordingly. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Myrchents for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Myrchents is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Myrchents until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. PamD 08:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taking care over your work

Please check what you type. Have another look at this version of Monkey's uncle. Is it really fit for an encyclopedia? Did Darwin write "The Decent of Man"? (Hint: Try "Descent"). Try spelling the title right in the lead sentence. "ackoeledge"? Give us a few links (Darwin, Scopes Trial, for a start). Actually the Oxford English Dictionary has a citation from 8 Feb 1925, which contradicts your text. The Scopes Trial was decided in June 1925, though I suppose it may have started before Feb of that year. (I haven't time right now to sort out adding that to the article but will do so some time).

In short, there seem a lot of problems with just this short stub. Please go back over your stubs and tidy them up - why should the rest of us have to clear up after you because you find it such fun creating stubs that you cannot apparently be bothered to get little things like spelling right. SLOW DOWN, and please go back over some of your past work. Thanks. PamD 19:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also ask you to slow down. You probably mean well, but your stub articles are of very very poor quality. As I have told you already elsewhere - some AfD page - please avoid pasting together a bunch of loosely relented sentences («<person> in <book> say <sentence>»); please avoid bare URLs, some explanation of what the URL is about help both readers and editors; please avoid references of zero quality (most on-line 'encyclopaedias', 'answers' have zero quality, because they have even less quality control than WP - and WP is far from reliable...). You probably mean well, if you do, please slow down, search, think how to get the references together in a coherent form, and write a couple good stubs, instead of tens of poor ones. Poor stubs are likely to present some wrong informations to our readers, and even prevent the creation of a better quality stub ultimately defeating your intention of "growth" - Nabla (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you reading any of this? Look at the stub you produced for Pfersee. It's only one sentence, and it has a reference, but:

Why did you italicise the name in the lead sentence?
Where in the world is Augsburg - you need to tell us. If you don't know, because your source doesn't say so, perhaps you should not be creating an article about it.
Give a link for Augsburg, in any case.

Then if we look at Chiroplast: your source is a collection of dictionary definitions, 4 of 5 of which are obviously copies of each other and contain the typo "guid". You have copied this. I gather that you are literate enough in English to know that this is wrong if you only pause long enough to read what you are adding to the encyclopedia. Your editing is becoming disruptive. Please slow down and take more care. PamD 09:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deautomatization is another stub that is just a compilation of chunks of text taken from books and another italicised lead Although they may be sourced, it's not the way we make articles here. You are also removing massive chunks of text (and their references) from articles without explanation. I also have no idea why you need to use ProveIt for your edtiting - I've been around for a very long time and never seen it appear in edit summaries before. I suggest you take a deep breath and do some serious reading of the WP:MoS and start by follow the links in the welcome message you were given here four years ago (4 years?!!!). Otherwise, I fear that sooner or later you might risk facing a block for disruption , and I might have to be the one to do it, whereas I would much rather see you taking the advice on board that you have been given, ask for help when you are not sure about something, and do some constructive editing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at most of Coin945's stubs, he seems to have no idea, nor really care to have one, about the subject he is writing about. Apparently he is searching the web and copying the first page having the term in it, without using any discretion whether the site and the sentence is credible or not. - Nabla (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS [@Kudpung]: ProveIt is a gadget included in user's preferences. I had never use it, but I gave it a try right now, at first glance it looks fine. - Nabla (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK Nabla, I know what ProveIt is - I installed it somewhile ago and I didn't find it particularly useful. In fact the only gadget I use here is Twinkle - except for one or two short cuts that are only of interest to admins. I think Coin is editing in good faith, but has failed to read up on some basic instructions. Perhaps he will listen now, and drop his fascination with the gadget for a while. Manual editing is the best way to learn. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, we agree then. My point is that using such gadget is not a problem (if it were it would need first to remove from our options), the problem is its abuse (and mostly the stub's style) - Nabla (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I love you...

...or rather your amazing contribution about kedushas Erez Yisrael. I always wanted to create that page! Thanks so much!!! xxx Chesdovi (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome :)--Coin945 (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

In my opinion turning redlinks into stubs is valuable, and does not require you fully understand the topic of the article you create, so long as you provide at least one good reference, or alternately, several less than perfect references. Geo Swan (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I personally agree with you. As long as the tiny bit of info you do put into an article is true, and useful, I don't see why its size should impede on an article's right to exist.--Coin945 (talk) 04:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Wickelphone

The article Wickelphone has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Incomprehensible. Any reader wanting to learn about "Wickelphones" would do better with a Google search instead of this assemblage of fragments from the editor's own such search.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PamD 08:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Deautomatization

The article Deautomatization has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I can't find any worthwhile sourcing for this term, it appears to be entirely a neologism that is not at all in wide use and has nowhere near the sourcing to support the article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note on AfD nominations

I've also noticed that you've been moving articles that you dispute proposed deletions on to Articles for Deletion. While you are likely doing this with good intents, stop. The only valid reason to list an article on AfD is if you, yourself, believe the article should be deleted. Otherwise, it is inappropriate to deny the nominator the opportunity to provide a rationale for deletion and to waste the community's time with a discussion that would never have happened if no one ever does decide to nominate it. You are, of course, always welcome to comment in an AfD discussion once it is underway. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Shared Dreaming for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shared Dreaming is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shared Dreaming until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. PamD 09:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Western dance

The article Western dance has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Poorly-written stub, better redirected to Dance.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PamD 11:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Betograve for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Betograve is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betograve until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Nabla (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Rassias method

The article Rassias method has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of what the subject is actually about, or any indication that the editor who created it knows what field it is in. Useful Wikipedia articles start with "X is a Y". A reader would be better served by doing their own Google search. The encyclopedia is not improved by this article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PamD 11:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sentence length (linguistics)

The article Sentence length (linguistics) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unencyclopedic assemblage of Google hits, not an asset to the encyclopedia.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PamD 19:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Chocolate-on-white ware

The article Chocolate-on-white ware has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no meaningful content - a string of empty sections

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nabla (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sentence length (linguistics) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sentence length (linguistics) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sentence length (linguistics) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Cnilep (talk) 03:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to comments on the stubs that I created (note that I didn't say "my stubs") - per that essay about "[not making] it personal" that I can't seem to find now

This is a copy of something which I posted to contest the deletion of Sentence length (linguistics)‎. I have to admit, it did tick me off a bit (hence the first sentence :P).

Okay, look. I understand your point about a lot of my articles being "collections of google hits" etc... but how does that make them unencyclopedic? It seems like a very good way to start an article IMO. First of all you get the info, just so there is something in the article, then afterwards you fish through the already found info and link up the info on similar topics and make paragraphs out of that. I think the problem is that you equating "collections of google hits" with unencyclopedic material is wrong. These articles are good. Obviously they are not perfect but besides maybe a couple which actually were uncyclopedic or obsolete, the rest give good info, even though the info may only be a few sentences long. The fact the the info is in discrete sentences, each gotten from a different source shouldnt make a difference at all. If you really do have a problem with these few articles which have been tagged recently, just take them to AfD. See what they say. Obviously my vote isn't going to have any weight on your decision so see what the wider community say. I may be wrong, who knows, but from my perspective, I have been majorly short-changed for trying to do some good to this community.--Coin945 (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I contend that some of the article I did create were bad... some, very bad, but on the whole, I have contributed some very informative few sentences on a variety of topics. Whatever you may say, I do honestly believe that I have done good. If this were done 5 years ago, I would have gotten no backlash. It is not my fault that now in this "so-called" phase where everyone is starting to care about quality more than quantity (of articles) that has resulting in this crazed idea that in the first few hours of creation, an article has to be formatted, copyedited etc. perfectly. I have seen tons and tons of articles of place names etc. and all that is in the article is: X is a Y in Z. That's it... I thought that instead of having like 1 sentence, gtting a bit more info and stuffing it in would at least give the article a bit more pezazz. As already mentioned, yes, it results in a "mismatch" (I guess you could call it) of Google hits, but that doesn't make the concept, or even the article bad. You may hate the articles, there is nothing I can do to stop you, and as past cases have proven, I agree with you in some cases. What I am saying is, stop dissing the articles that I have created for the wrong reasons.--Coin945 (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now just to bring some Wikipedia essays to your attention (which is the general practice nowadays...)

Wikipedia:Articles must be written
Wikipedia:Make stubs
Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress
Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built
Wikipedia:Etiquette/Wikipedia:Civility - referring specifically to the condescending way in which I have been talked about in various forums
Wikipedia:Notability - "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below... "Significant coverage" "Reliable" "Sources" "Independent of the subject" [etc.]" - nothing about the article's current state.

Yes, I know about these too: Wikipedia:Put a little effort into it, Wikipedia:An unfinished house is a real problem, Wikipedia:Don't hope the house will build itself etc. - but at least I am starting somewhere....--Coin945 (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In conclusion

I am truly sorry for the massive undertaking I have... i guess you could call it dumped on others. That was not my intention. You are right. The spelling mistakes and other general crap that was left over from stubs is terrible. I am merely saying that there is no reason to resort to deletion. I have stopped making stubs. I will go back and help sort out this mess. Any more work I do will be done with the proper care and thought that should have gone into the rest.--Coin945 (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relieved to hear that Coin. I can't speak for any talk on other pages about your work, but I feel sure that all the comments here have been made in the best of good faith and advice, and by some very experienced editors. If ever you need an further help, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. If you're not sure about a new article you want to write, consider preparing it in your user space first , and asking me or another editor for their opinion - we may even help you develop it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, my journey on Wikipedia has been a very lucrative one. I always love to try something new, and rarely end up doing the same thing for long. Just check my edit history. Just before this rampage started, I was in the middle of getting Mass Media up to featured article status. The problem is that I never have the patience to invest lots of time into 1 article, so I decided that if would be a lot more useful to help clear the forgotten backlog of redlinks. I have this secret love of seeing articles that I have started or worked on, edited and worked on my others. I love the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. I love the evolution an article taks over time, with lots of different editors working together, and overtime, an article getting better and better. Maybe I am too late. I know that as the Wikipedia community has dwindled to the core Wikipedians, articles now are expected to be a higher status and it's either an "all or nothing" type thing - like there's no chance you'll se a stub article being worked on over time by many editors. It usually starts off as a C grade. Otherwise its just an obscure topic that in all honesty will never be seen again. That's why I went from choosing clothing (I was clearing out the backlogs in Articlerequsts/Fashion) to more interesting, common topics that had not actually been covered on Wikipedia. In my wild anticipation for their growth, I started to create more and more articles, which naturally impeded on their quality. Based on all the knowledge I had about Wikipedia, I would never expected to see Western art (one of the 2007 Macropædia articles redirected to Dance, because as such a notable topic, even its current status would not make a difference, and instead would bring this othewise forgotten topic to people attention and they would work on it. I was mistaken... the culture of Wikipedia was not what I originally thought it was, or expected it to be. Soon the honeymoon was over, the AfD's began, and my original endevour became something entirely different. If I decide to start again, I may indeed do something entirely different, but if I do make more articles from scratch, know that they will not be perfect - I chose articles that seem interesting, not those that I know a lot (or even anything) about, but the information that are in the articles are all good info. They may be stubs, but if they are good stubs, I say let them be until they are discovered by a more experienced editor and developed.--Coin945 (talk) 08:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coin945, I'll partially repeat what I have said already in some AfD. The stubs you started were not targeted for being stubs, they were targeted for being bad stubs. I wholeheartedly agree with the principles you talk about. An article doe not need to start out perfect, not even close. The problem with 'your' stubs was, I repeat, that they are very bad, they are bot-like collection of Google hits. It is almost impossible to build up from there. I started rather few article, one I like is 'Gas heater'. It started back in 2005 has a small stub, note that the current version stills includes, almost word by word, my initial sentences. I am not pointing this to praise my article creation skills (as I've said I have done only very few) but to point that the initial sentences often set a tone for the article. What tone have you set? As I see it (or is it has I *ear* it? :-) you've set a tone near impossible to follow in many of them. Any one trying to improve most of them, have actually a harder time than starting from scratch: s/he has to make an effort to build an article and an extra effort to ignore the one that is there. You ahve read the references, you have understood something out of them, so instead of pasting opne sentence per ref, weave them into some nice couple or trio of your (referenced) sentences. You can do it, I've checked you contributions and you can do it. I know it. I hope you do it. If you'd really like to see 'your' stubs grow, and most even if obscure subjects do have potential, track'em back, clean'em up, weave the sentences, show pride in your work. And surely other will follow up, instead of deleting. - Nabla (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. Nothing much more to be said. As you can probably see, there's a deletion notice for something I worked on like 4 years ago below - when I was first working on the Horrible Histories article and VERY new to the community. ahh.. there's no rest for the wicked... :P--Coin945 (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Killer Puzzles

The article Killer Puzzles has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No justification for notability; Does not appear to meet WP:NBOOK.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ost (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merging and splitting

Hello, Coin945. At AfD:Sentence length (linguistics) you wrote, "Once two concepts are joined together, I wonder if they ever really do split apart again. [...] can you provide a few examples of where this course of action has worked successfully?" These are not exactly merge-and-then-split cases, but similar to what you are looking for.

In September 2007 the page Yellow Head (person) was created, describing three different people known as Yellow Head. Soon thereafter, another editor proposed that the page be split into three. It took some time, but in November 2010 the content was split into Ozaawindib, Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians#Yellow Head, and Mille Lacs Indians#Yellow Head.

After the page Awkward turtle was deleted in 2006, its content was recreated at List of gestures, and just this year was re-split to Awkward turtle.

It also appears that the page History of sentence spacing was split from the page Sentence spacing, though I don't think there was ever a merge there.

In short, split happens. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh.. thank you very much :) Now I am confident in whatever decision is reached.--Coin945 (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Familiarisation

The article Familiarisation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Nothing but a rather vague dictionary definition. Readers would be better served by using a dictionary or doing their own google search.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PamD 13:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Google search copy paste award

The Google search copy paste award goes to you: Coin945: Dog-cat_relationship (google search), Dominant response (google book search), and Distraction-conflict (google book search). One of us if fundamentally mistaken about the nature of WP. I start to suspect it is me... Thank you. - Nabla (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on now... that's just not fair.. those 3 are substantially better than the other ones. I used many sources, and actually created a good stub for each. Plus I am confident in their encyclopedic-ness(if that was a word... :P).

P.S I'm rather disappointed. Usually an award comes with a lovely little visual...! :D--Coin945 (talk) 02:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Cyberwhore

The article Cyberwhore has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Delete per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cloudz 679 20:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]