User talk:Dogsoc
A tag has been placed on Dogsoc, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD a7.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Blair - Speak to me 11:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Docsoc requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Accounting4Taste 15:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have retagged Dogsoc as I see no need for inclusion as it is an empty article that has no purpose other than some discussion. You can do that on talkpages. Captain panda 12:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Ed (Edgar181) 11:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dogsoc, I've removed the speedy deletion request from Dogsoc, since it clearly (now) has content and does not fall under any of the other speedy deletion criteria. I'm hoping that you will be able to provide references at some point (WP:Reliable sources may help.) Drop me a note if you need any further help. The article may still be deleted in future (though not "speedily") if the information in it cannot be linked to a reliable source (WP:V). Marasmusine 16:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
J&K
[edit]It seems you have gone in and removed a link to a seperate RTI Act for no good reason, then asked me to fix another link that I did not add. Why don't you do it yourself? J&K DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE DIRECT PURVIEW OF PARLIAMENTARY ACTS PER ARTICLE 370. All the other states do. The State Level RTI Acts have all been abandoned or repealed because they are superseded by Central RTI. J&K has constitutional autonomy and so its RTI regime is SEPERATE from the rest of India. If you remove the change again, you will be detracting from the page, making the information misleading and confusing. Since you are only trying to undo other people's contributions, I will seek involvement of an administrator.
Speedy Deletion "Dogsoc" as patent nonsense
[edit]Hi Dreadstar Could you please rehabilitate the "Dogsoc" article you deleted to some private talk space so that we can work with it and convert it to brilliant prose and all the other stuff. Would appreciate a little room / time to work on this one - since it is not patent nonsense although it may appear so at first blush. Dogsoc 03:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Dogsoc, the article consisted of an acronym and six sentences describing what the acronym meant, none of which was verifiable per WP:Verifiability, and which miserably failed Wikipedia:Notability. The only claim to verifiability was a presumed "xerox copy" of an "underground magazine" published in 1976 purportedly recently acquired and alleged to be undergoing the "process of being translated and scanned." The contents of the article, although short, were quite inflammatory, making unfounded accusations against governmental "regulatory assassins", etc. All in all, it added up to, quite frankly, patent nonsense with no meaningful content. Dreadstar † 05:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Dreadstar, Wiki has many articles devoted to acronyms (such as United Nations, United States of America). Referring to the recently acquired document, there is now a stay order of the concerned High Court on publication of this document. We can *Now* cite the judgement's link on an OFFICIAL Govt. High Court website (which ought to meet reputable source /verificability criteria). For DOGSOC notability a simple google (is this verifiable?) news search on "Nandigram" should do. Finally I may mention Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy which is absolutely non-negotiable. Dogsoc 03:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Dogsoc, you do not seem to have read the links provided to you. You say "DOGSOC" is on Google, but here is the Google search result for DOGSOC [1] with a total of one article from 1910, not related to this article you are claiming is notable. The words you said it stands for, "Dismantling our Governments Selling our Cities", a Google search comes up with again, nothing: [2] None of this has anything to do with POV, it has to do with, again, verifiability and reliable, third-party sources that establish the notability. Yes, USA, UN, and many, many other acronyms have pages here, but they are notable, mentioned in the news, media, and other reliable sources. This acronym is not. Further, you may wish to review the single purpose account guide as well. Thanks, Ariel♥Gold 04:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Docsoc, as Ariel said above, there are no google results, I always do a search prior to deleting articles, Wikipedia articles are not deleted without investigation. Provide three, verifiable third-party reliable sources, and I'll look into restoring the article. Dreadstar † 04:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Dogsoc, you do not seem to have read the links provided to you. You say "DOGSOC" is on Google, but here is the Google search result for DOGSOC [1] with a total of one article from 1910, not related to this article you are claiming is notable. The words you said it stands for, "Dismantling our Governments Selling our Cities", a Google search comes up with again, nothing: [2] None of this has anything to do with POV, it has to do with, again, verifiability and reliable, third-party sources that establish the notability. Yes, USA, UN, and many, many other acronyms have pages here, but they are notable, mentioned in the news, media, and other reliable sources. This acronym is not. Further, you may wish to review the single purpose account guide as well. Thanks, Ariel♥Gold 04:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Dreadstar, Wiki has many articles devoted to acronyms (such as United Nations, United States of America). Referring to the recently acquired document, there is now a stay order of the concerned High Court on publication of this document. We can *Now* cite the judgement's link on an OFFICIAL Govt. High Court website (which ought to meet reputable source /verificability criteria). For DOGSOC notability a simple google (is this verifiable?) news search on "Nandigram" should do. Finally I may mention Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy which is absolutely non-negotiable. Dogsoc 03:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Blocked
[edit]Following this last edit, you have been blocked indefinitely for your disruptive edits, continued trolling and creating nonsense articles. Dreadstar † 04:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)