User talk:Makron1n

Welcome!

Hello, Makron1n, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 18:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your good work on the new page patrol. At least for the article you beat me to marking as speedy. Without you, wikipedia would become a facebook for 10 year olds! Keep up the good work. Chris Kreider 01:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Excessive Speedy Tags

If you continue placing Speedy Tags like many of those you have placed in the last hour, you will be blocked. Go re-read WP:CSD & contact me to demonstrate you are becoming more competant in this area.
--Jerzy•t 04:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

_ _ Thanks. I have to confess that what drew my attention to you initially is technically an accurate A3 Speedy request, tho IMO

• pages in lists that are too long for a single page should be subject to the same exception as Dabs,
• it is an oversight that they are not, and
• we probably can correct that oversight before much time passes.

_ _ That being said, some of the others are on worthless articles that nevertheless do not qualify. (On both counts, the cactus-sex article comes quickly to mind. It's non-notable and unverifiable (IMO), and indeed unencyclopedic as it stands. However, none of those fits under CSD as far as i can see. {{ProD}} would probably be a good approach to them.

_ _ I'm going to go thru critiquing some of the more recent ones. I think they most likely reflect enthusiastically excessive zeal, and no probability of reflecting badly on your ability to contribute constructively here. And i hope my initial sense of urgency doesn't discourage you from wanting to do so.
--Jerzy•t 04:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well, stuff happens. When you goof, the next step is to ungoof. No big deal AFAI can see so far.
--Jerzy•t 04:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

_ _ Just getting started, but there's now at my deletion log an entry for the first deletion i have carried out pursuant to your nominations. Conversely, if you view your own contribs page, you'll notice the ones where i (or anyone else remove) tags (or work further on the article) will no longer show with your contribution as "(top)" (i.e., the most recent) one; i've also done fewer than a handful of those so far, but i expect more in each of those areas. IMO it's a cleanup/followup job worth my undertaking in any case; it may, or not, be useful to you to review them as feedback -- you be the judge of that.

_ _ For the moment, i'm going to follow up on the "Hang On" tags i added to the empty LoPbN pages (including retracting my statement that they didn't qualify as empty!), and you probably won't see much action from me in the next 24 hours.
--Jerzy•t 05:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

_ _ Well, from your contribs page, it appears that none of your last night's speedy nom's remain untouched: i didn't make a count last night, but it looks like you and others changed some to ProDs (as i did w/ one), and some were deleted (as i did w/one) and therefore not easily located: articles that one edits disappear from one's contribs if & when they are deleted. I intended to offer opinions on more of them, and have you able to count the deletions in my deletion log, but you-all seem to have gotten it done. While i saw some pretty bad ones, i saw some justified ones as well; FWIW my vague impression is that the bad and justified ones were roughly comparable in number.

_ _ I should, finally, note that my comment abt "excessive speedy tags" was badly worded; i was trying to imply in excess of the number the group of tagged pages deserved, and i would better have said something like "many under-justified tags". I hope i haven't put you off tagging for speedy deletion; the willingness to review new articles for that purpose is a welcome resource for the project, and i have every expectation that better circumstances and more experience will get you as close to on track as most of us are. (BTW, i make a point to carry out, in the cases of criteria that are more judgements and less objective, only speedy deletions that others have nominated; i find that my A7s are often rejected, and i'm trying to move straight to ProD with more of the ones that i sense others will question.)

_ _ Well, i trust you'll keep up the good work. And thanks again for your receptive attitude to my intervention, which in the heat of the, uh "spree", was none too gentle. I'm not sorry for coming on strong in light of the intensity of your immediately preceding work, but i'm comforted by my sense that you've managed to put what i said into the context it deserved. Thanks again.
--Jerzy•t 08:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of NG2

I already stated my arguments against your "speedy deletion" recommendation for the article NG2. Be sure to check them out. Thief12 22:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully this is the last of me being 'in it' for last night...Aaargh! Apologies. Makron1n 01:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)