User talk:I42

SwissAqua

Just learning here. I will review specific guidelines before new posts. However, I would like to remove my former incorrect posts. Can you please advise on how to do this?

umph

Sorry that my article umph wasnt great, but it is used commonly by tennis instructors and players to metion speed and balance, so can you start a better article?

Wan Kuzain Wan Kamal

Hi I42. The reason I put Wan Kuzain Wan Kamal to AfD was because of the fact that at first glance, some of the sources appear to be notable. Specifically this one as many who would glance at it without close inspection may assume that Bola Today is a reputable news source when in reality it is a blog site that anyone can contribute to. In the past I've had situations where speedy deletions have been declined on this basis, and typically in these situations it has had to go through to AfD, so I preempted by taking it to AfD to begin with. This way if the article is deleted and someone decides to recreate it, as the subject's name seems to be spammed relentlessly on many internet forums, the AfD consensus will exist to allow a speedy deletion in the future. Keep up your good work! HarlandQPitt (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thx! My AfD comment was to emphasise how clear-cut it is I think the article should be deleted. IMO, raising the AfD was unneccessary, but not wrong, and there was no intended criticism of your action. If you did not see it as quite so clear cut then I agree that seeking wider opinion is no bad thing. I42 (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Big data CSD

Please review Wikipedia policy regarding CSDG4. You tagged this 3 minutes after it was recreated. I see that you did participate in the original debate and likened the phrase to a generic definition. But I cannot imagine that you were able to follow the guidelines. "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies..." I appreciate the work you are doing, but hold off that Twinkle trigger on this entry and consider reading the wealth of supporting content? jk (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The article was deleted primarily because the term was considered to be non-notable. You have recreated an article about the same subject using the same term, so you have clearly disregarded the consensus established at AfD, and speedy deletion seemed (and still does seem) appropriate. You should instead have taken the article to WP:DRV if you believed the original reasoning no longer applied. Threatening to leave the project if the article was deleted was akin to the tantrum of a petulant child, but it did seem to sway the opinion of the admin who removed the tag. I42 (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The new article was substantially different from the deleted piece and directly addressed a key concern of almost all "delete" votes. My frustration is to notice you tagged CSD in three minutes, which makes me assume you didn't review the full case. I'm not calling anyone names, nearly expressing frustration when admins rush to remove well-considered content. Please assume good faith on Cirt's behalf here; I certainly appreciate his/her willingness to spend the time to find rough consensus and respect running code.jk (talk) 08:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Once

The song is due to chart at #1 in the UK yet, the artical still wont stay open, your pathetic!