Matt. P

This user may have left Wikipedia. Matt. P has not edited Wikipedia since 25 November 2010. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Altocelarophobia

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Altocelarophobia, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. CobaltBlueTony 17:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what you feel is patronizing or unhelpful: my comments here, or on the talk page of the article. The article message was related to the below message only. Your comment there, however, was definitely unhelpful. "Site proposed for deleteion," excuse me? What does that mean? You want to propose the deletion of the whole Wikipedia website because you didn't like my prod tagging? By all means, discuss it with me! Since you obviously do not wish to be seen as a "newbie" (and upon examination of your edit history it seems you are more prolific than it appears based on the total lack of messages on your talk page), you should recognize the distinction between content- and process-related discussions, and personal problems with other users. Addressing me as patronizing is a personal opinion, not an editing concern. I made no edits that were patronizing; I used appropriate user talk page templates. If that offends, I apologize, but again, you appeared new with no user talk page messages. - CobaltBlueTony 18:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I apologize form my poor use of English (I meant article instead of site) and merely fought "cute" was an unneccessary comment on it. I'm sure we can agree calmly on a way to settle the articles problems and I'm completely open to any constructive comments you or anyone else has. If these proves impossible, and there is no other interest in the article, then I will agree to its deletion. Matt. P 18:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I understand now that you are not a native English speaker. That definitely does change the meaning of your comment! As to my reaction being "unnecessary," that's open to interpretation. A mildly sarcastic comment (as yours originally appeared to be) is likely to invoke a mildly sarcastic response. Since that was not your intent, I retract my statement (as you have done for me in editing the talk page of the article. So, then, let's dispense with the breakdown in communication and focus on the article.

First, you have no resources that identify this as a legitimate medically diagnosed phobia (let alone any sources at all). As a Wikipedian for approximately 8 months, I'm certain that you have come across the policy which explains and enforces the strict need for proper verifiable sourcing. Without a source, an article has no legitimacy.

Second, my prod contains a link to the description of unstable neologisms in wikispeak, so that there should have given you something to think about. Certainly you may think a word is legitimate, or suitable for an article, but it must pass the standards for Wikipedia, thereafter on the opinions of the editors (you, me, and all the other users and admins). Perhaps you may have tried to read it, but had trouble with the English. If you give me yournative language, I can try to find this page or similar in your language so that you can get a better sense of the policy.

CobaltBlueTony 19:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Upon reading the links provided, I realise correctly that the site contains original research in that it contains neologisms and introduces an original idea which, although exists, I have not found any reliable sources. Therefore, I'm currently looking for reliable sources on the internet and, if unable to find any, there will be no other choice be to remove the offending article. Again my apologies for any rash comments I have made and will try to assume greater good faith in any criticisms. --Matt. P 21:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Duly noted. Advice well taken, and I'll try to do the same for seemingly sarcastic remarks I find in the future! Happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony 22:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I haven't been able to find any sources so far, so the article is free now to be deleted. Matt. P 14:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Reply