RasterFaAye (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
From
WP:PROD: "Remove the {{dated prod}} tag from the article, noting this in the edit summary. Editors should explain why they disagree with the proposed deletion either in the edit summary, or on the article's talk page." Simply going through a list of articles deleting prod tags without explanation is disruptive and against policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked. caknuck°resolves to be more caknuck-y 04:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Note this, also from
prod
}} tag from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except when the removal is clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article). If the edit is not obviously vandalism, do not restore the tag, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. If you still believe that the article needs to be deleted, list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.
I agree that he should provide rationale, but if he simply contests it, let it go through AFD. Master of PuppetsCall me MoP! :D 04:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is NO obligation on me to explain why I removed a prod, removing a few prods is not disruptive. Do not make empty threats to block me.
RasterFaAye (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, removing this many without reasoning is questionable, and if you keep going that would constitute disruption. Could you provide any just to be courteous? Thanks, Master of PuppetsCall me MoP! :D 04:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ones I removed were carefully selected and were in no way random.
RasterFaAye (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
For a variety of different reasons. I removed one added by Cannibaloki for an obvious reason, though not the others he did. Now what is wrong with these prods by Cannioboloki? [1][2][3] and [4]
RasterFaAye (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
If you have issues with Cannibaloki not providing rationale for their prod, then the correct thing to do is to raise the question on their talk page. Simply reverting their edits without any justification does nothing to solve the problem; it only exacerbates it. Please exercise better judgment when dealing with situations like this in the future. caknuck°resolves to be more caknuck-y 06:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is highly anomalous for a new user to do nothing but remove (a large number of) prod-notices. It is also unusual for a new user's second action to be a redirect (as this involves a degree of knowledge that one does not typically find in new users). HrafnTalkStalk 04:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it's a new account doesn't necessarily mean Raster is a "new user". There are plenty of explanations for their prior knowledge of how things work around here. caknuck°resolves to be more caknuck-y 06:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
, your one word objection, "useful", is not sufficient.
"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." (from Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not).
"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so many useful things that do not belong in an encyclopedia are excluded; yet everything in it should be useful in some context. But just saying something is useful or useless without providing context is not helpful or persuasive in the discussion. Remember, you need to tell us why the article is useful or useless, and whether it meets Wikipedia's policies" (from Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#It.27s_useful).
In short: please provide more reasoning. - Wormcast (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when I saw it I found the information it contained very informative, it was useful to have such information all together on the one page. Surely usefulness is an encyclopedia's prime raison d'etre.
RasterFaAye (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
A telephone book, or a chart plotting GDP vs. STD rates may be informative and useful; neither belong in a stand-alone article in wikipedia. Are you simply a troll, or do just you fail to understand that not everything true and useful/informative (to someone) is encyclopedia-worthy?
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about that article. Please do send it to AFD though, if it offends you so.
RasterFaAye (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
I seem to be generally considered as one of the Wikipedia administrators often unwilling to delete articles if they have any chance at all. But most of the articles from which you removed prods are totally unlikely to be kept. If you want to rescue articles from the prod queue, a worthy enterprise if done right, look for articles which either do seem to actually be notable or otherwise acceptable, or ones that can be readily improved to that status. And when you remove the prod, say something at least in the edit summary to indicate why, & make it clear that you are deprodding. Otherwise, the net effect is likely to be unproductive, for even rescuable articles that you may deprod without explanation are likely to very soon be deleted via afd, at the cost of considerably greater trouble for a considerable number of people. You have the right to deprod, but if it looks arbitrary or irrational, you will not be encouraged. You will do an enormous amount more good if you look for articles which merely need sources, are likely to have them, and then actually find them and add them to the article, and say so, before deprodding. Then you will find support for what you do. DGG (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the above
... has me thinking of this page:
WP:BITE. Please, I urge patience and a belief of good faith toward RasterFaAye. rkmlai (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
G'day! I seem to be the latest in a long line of people visiting your talk page asking about proposed deletions. I notice you removed the prod on the above article with the edit summary "likely to be notable". Unfortunately this doesn't give me much to go on. Did you have some specific sources I should be aware of for this school? Cheers, Basie (talk) 05:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, it just seems to me that a school of nursing that has been going for over 100 years is likely to be notable.
RasterFaAye (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
That description applies to thousands of organisations, not all of which would make good subjects for Wikipedia articles. I am nominating the article for deletion. Basie (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Care to explain why that PROD was controversial? Yilloslime(t) 00:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He may well be notable, it's difficult to be sure though.
RasterFaAye (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
In your opinion, is there any situation in which a PROD should not be removed? Yilloslime(t) 01:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most prods probably shouldn't be removed.
RasterFaAye (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, what specifically led you to feel that the Malanga PROD should have been removed? Yilloslime(t) 01:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He seems to have made quite a few publications, though these have been removed from the article for some reason.
RasterFaAye (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
"Not uncontroversial"
I see you are continuing to do little but de-prod articles, generally with the very unhelpful generic boilerplate "not uncontroversial". Please explain why:
I would note that you have already had at least two of your de-prodded articles deleted at AfD, neither with any significant opposition (one "weak weak keep" in total), and that you didn't bother to comment on either of them. Your de-prodding appears reflexive rather than considered, and I would suggest that its pattern is itself "not uncontroversial". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I deprod any article I believe has a reasonable chance at AFD or any article that has previously been prodded or to AFD. I can assure you careful thought goes into each deprodding.
RasterFaAye (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Then your idea of "reasonable chance at AFD" requires fine-tuning.
Time will tell on the latest AFD's. My record on non-procedural deprodding of articles at AFD isn't too bad. [5][6][7][8]. Oh and Amanda Riska was primarilly deprodded because the prodder did not inform the article's creator of the prodding.
RasterFaAye (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
"Amanda Riska was primarilly deprodded because the prodder did not inform the article's creator of the prodding" is a ludicrous excuse to de-prod. If you thought that informing the creator was so important then why didn't you do so yourself instead of subjecting the community to a completely unnecessary AfD. I see that you have taken to appending largely superficial explanations to your "not uncontroversial"s -- most of which appear based upon the mistaken belief that notability can be