Hello, Holypod! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! TLA3x ♭ → ♮17:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to disagree. I believe that articles shouldn't be here without proof of notability, and the burden isn't upon the community, but upon the page creators to assert a reason for notability. Citing policies that allow lazy article creation, is just weird to me as well. Three years is not "a while", and to be honest, you could have said this in the AFD. Y'all didn't have to come around here to harass someone on their talk page. Holypod (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Holypod, if you nominate multiple articles for deletion that clearly don't meet our deletion criteria then you can expect to get messages explaining how you are going wrong. If you choose to interpret such help as harrassment then I would suggest that Wikipedia is not a place where you can best use your skills. For example you stated that SilverPlatter was completely unsourced and that InfoTrac was uncited, both for nearly a decade, when both of these statements could be seen to be obviously untrue just by glancing at the articles. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In my line of work, what you're doing in your AfDs is what we call a factual misrepresentation, when one makes a factual statement that is easily falsified by reviewing the evidence. Not that I agree with his politics, but I always liked Joe Wilson's much more direct way of saying it.--Coolcaesar (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that every one of the 9 articles you have recently listed for deletion were ones that I wrote; I also notice they are all headed for keep or speedy keep. Have we ever interacted before? DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. However, it appears from the above that Wikipedia does not delete articles for being poorly sourced, so apparently I should have simply added a template labeling them as poorly sourced. That was not fully apparent to me; the more obscure policies cited above make that clear though. Holypod (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I still have some questions:
How do you explain your notes to Bgarren and Cgptoday?
There is really no way of responding to this, as you can see, there is progressively more aggressive and intimidating language being used above. But I'll make the effort. Bgarren: I already replied to that and the Bgarren page. CPGToday: the same reason. Both made promotional edits from singular accounts that made no other edits, after the articles edited had been added unsourced or badly sourced for a long time. Cpgtoday added the names of people in the company without sources. That's the sign of a COI editor. The other editor had four stricken out edits, following the same pattern of pages that were badly sourced or unsourced, which saw single editors come in to make single sets of edits, and leave. I also asked User:Brianbclan, who adimitted to having a COI. I saw a pattern, that articles by a certain editor would enter Wikipedia almost entirely unsourced, and that later editors would come on to make what I see as COI edits. There were a lot of examples of this: poorly sourced articles posted, which were altered done the line by SPIs. If this is coincidental, okay, the articles were not added with poor sourcing to become anchors for later editing; they were just added without good sources and later SPI edits were entirely unrelated to the article poster. As you pointed out earlier, you are an Arbitrator and have the ability to look at hidden edits, so I should not be questioning this further as I am sure you would have seen something to this pattern if there was one. So I have stopped and will believe that this was merely coincidental. As per the storm raging above, I will also apologize for using AFD at all, and will not use it again. Holypod (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
