User talk:Tetromino/Archive 1

Re Russian icons, whilst most of your edits are very welcome, I would suggest checking out WP:NOT. Among the things Wikipedia is not are:

• a tourist guide
• a how-to guide for collectors
• a manual on how to smuggle antiques

Thanks, Johnbod 04:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Having looked at WP:NOT, I am convinced that your edit[1] was in error.

• you said the that wikipedia is not a tourist guide. OK. However, the note about Russian customs officials searching travelers' bags is not a mere tourist guide note. First, it is evidence of the steps Russia is taking to protect its cultural heritage such as old icons. Second, in most Western countries, while all bags go through security checks, generally only bags coming into the country are searched by customs. Russia is quite different, and the unusual (by Western standards) behavior of its law enforcement are IMHO encyclopedic. Perhaps there is a way to reword that sentence to make it sound less tourist-guide-ey?

The fact that 19th century icons nevertheless show up ebay is evidence of the fact that either there really are forgeries out there (relevant to the article which has a bunch of words about forgeries), or of the degree to which Russia's attempts to stop icon smuggling are effective (again, relevant).

• you said that wikipedia is not a howto manual for collectors. I believe you have me confused with Factsandhonesty.
• you said that wikipedia is not a manual on how to smuggle antiques. I hope that was a result of misunderstanding - otherwise, I can only take it as an insult. However, I do not see how my words could possibly be interpreted as a guide for icon-smuggling scumbags. Please explain. Tetromino 04:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, Fact & Honesty has reverted all both our changes! Johnbod 02:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Persistent fellow. Thankfully he/she didn't restore the stylistically awful mess that was there before. Btw, would splitting the icon collectors section off into its own page be a solution to the edit war, or do you think it is inherently unfit for wikipedia? Tetromino 05:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I would be much happier with a Collecting Russian icons fork. But I don't think collecting tips belong in an art history article. The article needs more on the earlier periods - I have the Popova Thames & Hudson/Braziller book and others & will add from them at some point. I think I was wrong above; he has in fact kept most of your changes. Johnbod 16:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Transcode

Hi. I recommend you have a look at Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Spam as a starting-point. If you create an article whose primary purpose is to promote a product (regardless of whether that product is free), it is blatant advertising. That was what it appeared to me the article was for. If you create an article about a product that is not notable, that can also be deleted. In your case, you had not provided evidence of notability; if you had, I would just have put an "advert" tag on the article. If, for example, you could cite a reputable source that stated that the product had been downloaded by a million users, that would be fine, even though the product is free. If you could cite a source that stated it was the best-selling product of its kind, that would be fine. If I could do a google test and find 100,000 references to this particular product, that would also be evidence. You just need to research the subject more fully before you create the article.

There is no requirement for a contributor to be informed in advance of a speedy deletion; non-administrators usually give warning because they don't have the ability to carry out deletions and there is therefore a time delay. For an admin, deleting inappropriate articles is very time-consuming and would be impossible if a warning had to be given every time. I am taking the trouble to tell you this because you took the trouble to ask. Deb (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. What I've said in the paragraphs above still holds true. If you follow the instructions to establish notability, and the subject really is notable, then you shouldn't have any difficulty creating an article that won't get deleted. Deb (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that the article meets the criteria for notability, say so in the article and cite your references. Deb (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

So where is the evidence of notability? In the almost unchanged replacement article, I see two links to reviews (one of which is derogatory), three external links that are not relevant to this product, a broken external link, and nothing at all in terms of evidence of the level of use. Google hits are very thin on the ground. Why would anyone reading this not suspect a conflict of interest? Deb (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Transcoding applications

Hello Tetromino, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Transcoding applications - a page you tagged - because: Not unambiguously promotional. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)