User talk:Pawelpacewicz
Welcome!
Hello, Pawelpacewicz, and
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called
- Starting an article
- Your first article
- Biographies of living persons
- How to write a great article
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Help pages
- Tutorial
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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Fiddle Faddle 17:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
old news
|
---|
Speedy deletion nomination of SORCER
A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by ]Nomination of SORCER for deletionA discussion is taking place as to whether the article SORCER 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/SORCER 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. Fiddle Faddle 14:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC) November 2013
--Pawelpacewicz (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
The article Service-object-oriented architecture has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons .
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing |
Wikipedia is not academe
I think you need to read
Please understand that it is an absolute requirement on Wikipedia for a notable thing to have that notability verified in reliable sources. Show that the thing has genuine notability and all the issues surrounding it will go away as if by magic. The amount of rhetoric you are deploying seems to follow the rule that the index of notability is inversely proportional to the quantity of rhetoric used to seek to show it. Fiddle Faddle 10:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
howdy
Hello Pawel, did I guess your name correctly? :-) Please call me 74. Great work on the SORCER article, I like it, so far. I have tried to explain over on the Talk:SORCER page what will help get the tags off the article. I'd be happy to help if I can, and especially try to answer your questions.
In particular, wikipedia has a special definition of a secondary source: one that is independently fact-checked, independently peer-reviewed, or independently publisher-editorial-board-confirmed. There seems to be some confusion that, if another scientist or engineer (other than the original author/inventor) writes another paper which *cites* the original papers on SORCER, that makes the second paper into a "secondary source". This is close, but not quite correct... the second paper has to be *about* SORCER specifically in large part (just citing prior work is not enough), and furthermore, the second paper has to be fact-checked / peer-reviewed / editorial-board-confirmed *itself* to be considered a wikiReliable Source.
Anyhoo, we can chat about that subtle distinction, or prose changes, or whatever, here on your talkpage, or over on the article-talkpage, as appropriate. If you reply to me, and I don't respond quickly, please feel free to leave me some sort of hey-you note on my own talkpage. Thanks for improving wikipedia, appreciate it. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- I've replied on Talk:SORCER#notability_and_sourcing, methinks we are doing well. I will ping the other folks, and see if they agree. Thanks for your good work. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Some discussion about who will be working on what, here. Talk:SORCER#notability_and_sourcing Are you okay with moving all the current talkpage to an archive, so we can see what we're doing? It's pretty cluttered, now. Also, I have attempted to rewrite the first paragraph into a more neutral form, please give me your suggestions and criticisms. Talk:SORCER#todo_list Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hello. :-). I'm glad we are working on it :-). I will move it to archive (I'll do it 1st time - so I'll find sth. in wikipedia help and follow that instructions - I guess it's easy). Of course I'll share my suggestions. Pawelpacewicz (talk) 12:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, me too. It takes a bit to get everything cleaned up, but if we go slow and steady, with me hacking away and you trying to keep me from going too far off the pathway, we should get through all the paragraphs of the article, and then after our first pass, we can step back, and see whether we have knocked off most of the ugly tags at the top, and what to do next. Wikipedia articles are supposed to start off with the basics, and then gradually build up the to more advanced concepts, as we go. It may take more than one pass to get this correct. But we'll get there, methinks. Thanks for improving wikipedia, happy new year, talk to you later. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hello. :-). I'm glad we are working on it :-). I will move it to archive (I'll do it 1st time - so I'll find sth. in wikipedia help and follow that instructions - I guess it's easy). Of course I'll share my suggestions. Pawelpacewicz (talk) 12:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of SORCER for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SORCER 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/SORCER (2nd nomination) 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. Fiddle Faddle 12:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hello again Pawelpacewicz, happy proleptic gregorian increment. :-) This is actually a MOVE discussion, not a deletion, I hasten to point out. It is also procedural, and not permanent, please see over here. Left you and Professor Sobolewski a note, over here — User_talk:Mwsobol#procedural_discussion_only.2C_be_ye_not_alarmed — feel free to discuss with me on my talkpage, if you like (click 'talk' by my name, then click 'new section' at the top, leave me a message, and click 'save'). Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hello Paselpacewicz, this message[1] is not helpful to SORCER nor to yourself... it is no good saying mean things regardless of whether or not you believe they are truthful things... so I have broken etiquette and deleted it from the talkpage, per WP:NICEeven when it is hard, please.
- Anyways, you are free to express your frustrations on my user-talkpage, which I can read and then delete, but it is not helpful to take out your frustrations on anybody else, even when you believe they are the cause for your frustration. Please WP:IMAGINE that everything is not always as it seems. Hope this helps, and I left you a big bunch of new messages on Talk:SORCER, when you are calm and collected, please comment if my conclusions are correct. Thanks for your understanding. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)]
- Hello Paselpacewicz, this message[1] is not helpful to SORCER nor to yourself... it is no good saying mean things regardless of whether or not you believe they are truthful things... so I have broken etiquette and deleted it from the talkpage, per
Whatever your opinions of me you are required to be civil
This diff is unpleasant and rude. Your behaviour is very close to unacceptable. Indeed others may judge this statement to be unacceptable. You will see that it has been redacted by another editor. However strongly you feel about your project's inclusion on Wikipedia you must remain
Your personal opinions of me are irrelevant. Your role is to behave with civility and within Wikipedia's rules. One of those rules concerns the massive
You believe it to be notable. I do not. So, we disagree. That is not a bad thing nor a good thing. It is just a fact. We disagree.
Now the wider community has a second chance to discuss it and to reach a formal conclusion. That is a good thing. If it is notable it will remain. If not then it will go. There will be no fanfare if it remains and no funeral if it goes. This is WIkipedia, where all actions, great and small are open to global public scrutiny. Your comment will exist on that talk page for all time, as do mine here, and that happens even if the page is deleted. Wikipedia is a vehicle where nothing is lost.
With regard to SORCER, you will not save it by rhetoric. You may save it by work, proving that the topic is notable by use of reliable sources. What you need to do is to show, and show unambiguously, that
I have very little intention of interacting with you or SORCER or the deletion discussion again, but I reserve the right to do so, and would whether I said so or not. I have tried very hard over the past two months to lead you towards what you or others need to do in order to establish
Work is required, as is rigour, not insults and not rhetoric. It is not my work. Please, once again, read
- This is solid advice, though perhaps more blunt than I would phrase it. One correction, is that there is absolutely positively still no nuclear superpower. :-) Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)]
- 74 is slightly mistaken. There is a 21 day deadline for deletion discussions, though they are usually handled in 7 days. The discussion has three options: To keep, to delete, or to preserve while moving form main name space. It is most likely that the first or second options will happen. The third is a luxury, and it might. One may also opt for userfication if an article is deleted.
- There is no point in periphrasis. There has been quite enough of that in the discussions on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin over the primary sources. If you are going to work on the article, its sources, or discuss the deletion, get to work with a will, and deal in cold facts. And do it now. Fiddle Faddle 00:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- 74 is slightly mistaken. There is a