User talk:Carehart

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! Perfecto 14:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coldfusion

I removed the two inline external links you added to ColdFusion. Wikipedia is NOT a web directory. We prefer them red than going to another site. See Wikipedia:External links for more information. -- Perfecto 14:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've not had my submissions edited this way before, and I don't know if entering a response here is the correct thing to do. I would like to respond that I disagree, to a degree, with your action. By making the change you did you have lost the valuable information of the hyperlink that I'd found and entered. Before my change, there was no such link. By changing it to an internal link (that has no page), you are not only losing information but also forcing me (or someone else) to create a new page to hold that info. If I/we don't have time, then why isn't a link enough for now? Why not leave it to someone with more motivation to create the stub page for the product I linked to? It's a relevant and informative link I made, not some kind of sales pitch. I don't represent the companies to whom I added the links (indeed, I work for a competitor. Talk about NPOV!) It also seems in line with the admonition on the page about when an external link is or isn't permitted. It said, "If the site you are linking to is an article, history or timeline, then wikipedia should have its own article on that subject, not just an external link." I wasn't linking to an article, history, or timeline. I know you're here and doing this to help educate people. I welcome your response.

Before anything else, the URL is there, forever, in the article history. Now, first, the items of that series list all have articles, so it's consistent. Second, having it red encourages people to write an article and grow the encyclopedia. An article is likely more neutral than the topic's official website. An article is also likely proof that the topic is encyclopedic or notable. Third, the wiki software tallies redlinks to Wikipedia:Most wanted articles. Fourth, when someone indeed writes an article, redlinks, in potentially dozens of articles, immediately become blue, requiring no work on our part. You have read many reasons why external links are bad in Wikipedia:External links. -- Perfecto 23:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Raymond Camden

I have nominated Raymond Camden, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Camden. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Black Kite 15:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Carehart! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 8 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Raymond Camden - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Raymond Camden

A tag has been placed on Raymond Camden requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ridernyc (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Rob Brooks-Bilson for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rob Brooks-Bilson 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/Rob Brooks-Bilson 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Hokie RNB 21:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you guys help out those of us who don't live in wikipedia? About this request for discussion, I don't see any obvious way here or on the talk page for the deletion that I should use to add a comment. So I am adding this, not knowing what else to do. As for the debate, if you want to delete it, fine. When I posed the article several years ago, Rob was a major contributor to the ColdFusion community. He is no longer. I wouldn't have proposed removing him because of that, but rather would have left him there for posterity. But if you guys are looking to clean house and have your expectations, I'm not motivated to work to meet them, so delete away. But I would really recommend you look at things from the objective perspective of one like me, being asked to do this by folks like you, and perhaps you could add more info to help people know how best to add comments, whether here or there. Perhaps you presume "well, you created a wikipedia article, and you're expected to understand this stuff." But I'm saying I posted the article (and a couple of others) several years ago. I have not actively maintained them, and so I do not live in the world of constant/frequent WP edits, and as such I look at this situation and wonder, "should I even bother to try to reply?". And I suspect many others in my position would do the same, which would lead to people just quietly acquiescing to the deletion without comment, which is probably not best. But I leave this for your consideration. Finally, I see this option on the editor here to "sign your posts on talk pages", and I have done that. But in the preview I don't see anything tying that to "all I wrote" in this reply, so I have left this as one huge paragraph wanting it to clearly stand out as all being my one reply. I welcome suggestions on that if you have them (or you can make your own edits to solve that problem however it should be in this system). If instead you will just take the meat (proceed with deletion) and spit out the bones (my commentary on the challenge to reply), I'll understand that as well. Carehart (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]