User talk:Tdfdc

Quick deletion of Spider International

The page you wrote, Spider International, has been selected for quick deletion. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. You can find more information about the reason here. Rus793 (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Tdfdc. You have new messages at Chenzw's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RfD nomination of Spider International

An editor has requested deletion of Spider International, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2013/Spider International and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Osiris (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spider International

When the earlier version of this article was moved to your userspace after going through RfD, it was specified that it needed another editor's review before being recreated. You recreated the article without any review that I can find, and without addressing the notability issues that were the basis for the RfD. Therefore I have deleted the article. If there was a review of the article, please give a link to it. Thank you. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually after that, Osiris have said that we may have another RfD discussion, because the article was completely updated and more sources were added. Please see it on his talk page.

You may also refer to the initial Chenzw decision, I think it was in the QD discussion. He said we can put the article back, if it will be rewritten to avoid copyright issues Tdfdc (talk) 13:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like those taken into account, please post links to the changes you mention so that we don't have to guess exactly what you're referring to. Please be sure you are not misinterpreting things other editors have said or done. For example, the fact that another editor (even an administrator) changed the article does not mean they have reviewed or approved it.

In any case, since you recreated the same article again, User:Djsasso deleted it, and I have salted it. (Although the deletion log shows that I deleted it, my attempt to delete actually failed because Djsasso beat me to it.) I moved the content of the talk page to the talk page of the article in your userspace. Let's keep future conversation there instead of spread scross several different user talk pages. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall deleting this page. I was deleting other pages. But yes I probably would have deleted it anyways. But we can discuss the situation. -DJSasso (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought the message I saw said that you had deleted it. Maybe you had deleted a previous version? In any case, it would have gotten deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome a discussion. All the changes that were done to the article are listed in the history of my editing my sandbox and can be traced from the date of the initial consensus in the RfD. Tdfdc (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you have deleted the article, could you post in my talkpage the content of the article's talkpage as well? Tdfdc (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I put it on the talk page of your sandbox copy of the article. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be more appropriate to have another RfD, because of following reasons:

a) Osiris has proposed it after the initial RfD.

b) The article got changed considerably during the RfD, yet it wasn't reviewed by the editors who formed the initial consensus prior to closure of the RfD discussion.

c) I have updated the article even more after that, adding more references. Tdfdc (talk) 13:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello. You have a new message at Osiris's talk page. Message added 07:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Osiris (talk) 07:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Tdfdc". Thank you. Only (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Spider International 2

I have closed the review on the deletion of Spider International 2. The community has clearly supported the original decision to delete the article on the grounds of notability. Thankyou for your contributions to the Simple Wikipedia.--Peterdownunder (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please allow the deletion review to run for a few more days? I'm feeling that we were rather at a breaking point (and in midst of a polite discussion with Chenzw and Beefball).Tdfdc (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The review has been closed. While I am sorry that you are unhappy with the result, the community has made a clear decision. I have not deleted the article which is in your sandbox, and can remain there. I would suggest that you give up on Spider International, and find some other articles to work on. We do not have many articles on audio related topics, and your contributions would be appreciated.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your article Ormoc

Thanks for your article Ormoc. Just a couple of things to be aware of. You want to be careful of WP:Citation Overkill. One, or sometimes two good sources is all a statement needs. Besides creating unnecessary clutter in an article, it can call attention to the article as potentially not being notable. Secondly, it may also call attention to the possibility of WP:Synthesis. This is when one source verifies one part of a statement and another source verifies another part (neither source verifying the whole statement). Citing sources in any form is a very good start. If you just pick your best source to verify a statement that’s really all that is needed. Thanks Rus793 (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is it now? Are the citation's overkill have been addressed in your opinion?

What about the English language? Which words or phrases or constructs should be simplified in the article?

If I would like to use one reference in two instances of the article, how do I do that? Any alternative ways to <ref="name"/>?Tdfdc (talk) 09:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are working hard on the article Ormoc. I suggest putting the inuse template on the page while editing. This will help insure that there are no edit conflicts. Thanks!Pending ^{(tell me I screwed up}^{and where)}

Thanks. I have just finished implementing the changes I had in mind.Tdfdc (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks ten times better than it did before! Keep up the great editing! Pending ^{(tell me I screwed up}^{and where)} 14:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Tdfdc. You have new messages at Auntof6's talk page.
Message added 09:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Auntof6 (talk) 09:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]